DJ Teflon wrote:Latest ChangesOn your latest update you mention bonus changes - however, they seem the same as previously in the update.

Oops! I neglected to change the image link. Thanks for pointing this out.

Number of TerritoriesAs far as I can see, you have 48, with 4 starting neutral (the bikes) - 44 starting territories - this is a great number for gameplay purposes as ian mentioned above.

I've counted and re-counted and still get 46 total - 4 neutral for 42. Are you counting MAX #1 & #2 twice? Or am I missing something on my own map? (very probable).

Bike TerritoriesI'm wondering if you will still have the same problem with killer neutrals, as opposed to the large-ish (6) neutrals you had before. Players will often go through one killer neutral territory to reach an opponent (and hit their bonus etc) but I imagine it would be extremely rare for players to lose troops going through two killer neutral territories. I can see your aim here - you want the bike routes to be an alternative, but difficult attack route. Perhaps you could have 'decay' on the bikes instead (i.e. they lose 1 army per round rather than resetting to neutral)? It may also be worth considering why the bike lanes would have decay - you may need to explain this in the key (e.g. they are too narrow for military operations).

I've been playing the Eastern Empires map and I really like the Naval Superiority element - which resets to 4. Granted, it is only 1 spot instead of 4 and I do see your point about losing 6, but I don't envision the bike lanes being used frequently. What makes it different is that - unlike the Naval territory - you can move your armies off the Bike Lanes, so you don't have to "use it or lose it" with however many troops you move there. It functions almost solely as a transportation territory. I also like the idea that they open you up to retaliation (as it will not reset until your begin your next turn) - something a player would need to keep in mind when making a big offensive move. Perhaps I should knock it down to 2 neutrals each?

I am open to the decay idea though. If I went that route, it could be explained as "danger from vehicles" (which is a very real problem in Portland - not everyone is on the bike bandwagon and collisions happen - usually to the detriment of the cyclist). My only problem with it is that there really is no reason to hold on to those territories (no bonus), so a -1 decay doesn't strike me as much of a drawback.

Metro BonusesMy reading of the bonus key (and probably most players' reading) is that only one player could hold metro bonus(es) due to the central junction being required by all. Just thought I'd double-check. This would make the central territory a key position, although it may deter many players from trying to secure a metro bonus. I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with that, just food for thought when thinking through how games may develop.

[/quote]That is correct - only one player can have a metro bonus at one time. Your concerns are why I upped the bonuses to 4, 6 & 6 (which should show up now).

What intrigues me about the Metro bonus is its high potential. While it is difficult to hold, you can easily turn a bonus of 5 into a bonus of 15 with only 4 additional territories (or 9-11 with 2 more territories). These territories will also be very valuable for bottleneck defenses - so I can see them playing a major part in the game.

No. territoriesSorry, you are right 46 (-4 neutral) - still a good number though (4 players would start with 10, 2 players with 14).

Metro BonusesI see your thinking here - the Metro stations would generally be border-crossings between the normal bonus areas - gaining control of the metro system would be tricky - if it happens and a player holds all 3 then that could be game over from the big bonus. Whether this would work requires a little more careful thought - wouldn't like to give a hasty opinion (at this moment in time) for or against the metro bonus system in general. Ian or myself will come back to you on this soon.

However, the yellow line has just 3 stations and a +4 bonus. There is a danger this may be gained on the drop. There are a few options you may wish to think about to resolve this (coded starts for example and making one station a neutral - although this would change your no. of starting territories).

The Bike RoutesI agree that killer neutrals would be preferable and perhaps setting them all as +2 is the solution - my immediate reaction is that this would work, although, again, I reserve proper considered judgement.

The main thing is that the bike routes are a viable option which players will use (like Naval Superiority in Eastern Hemisphere as you say) - this makes the 4 areas they are in more difficult to hold. When bonus values are fine-tuned, it is important that the routes are viable.

I'm impressed with your quick responses and updates, good work. Plus, it is great that you are open and willing to respond to feedback, as demonstrated by the fact that you have a poll considering the name of the map. Keep it up.

is there any need to have the -1 negative bonus for holding the max transit center? since the negative bonus is now operational only when a max bonus is held, it no longer seems to have much effect on anything and looks gimmicky. however, increasing the max bonuses, which are awkward to hold, to their current level is certainly a good move.

as dj says, if u want to avoid fixed starting neutrals, then the yellow max line will need to be coded as start positions to reduce the incidence of unfair starts. i think this can be best achieved by pairing each of the three yellow stations with one of the southwest regions to create 3 sets of 2 start positions. in a 1v1 game, only 2 of the sets of 2 will serve as start positions, while the regions in the third set will be allocated in the normal way along with the ordinary regions and stations.

might portland: rose city be a good title for the purposes of the gamefinder's drop-down list?

DJ Teflon wrote:The main thing is that the bike routes are a viable option which players will use (like Naval Superiority in Eastern Hemisphere as you say) - this makes the 4 areas they are in more difficult to hold. When bonus values are fine-tuned, it is important that the routes are viable.

it does appear that the bike lanes invalidate the changes i made to make bonuses easier to hold. even with +4 to get through each attack, it makes for difficult defense as the game progresses. next update, i will try moving the bike lanes to only touch one or two territories. (primarily removing it from Hawthorne, Alberta Arts & University).

iancanton wrote:is there any need to have the -1 negative bonus for holding the max transit center? since the negative bonus is now operational only when a max bonus is held, it no longer seems to have much effect on anything and looks gimmicky. however, increasing the max bonuses, which are awkward to hold, to their current level is certainly a good move.

my thought here is that the "Fareless Square" (called so in real life too), you lose a troop like a transit owner would lose money by not charging a fare. as for gameplay, i thought it would help offset the value of that territory. since it is the primary connector for all Max lines and required for any of the bonuses, i could forsee it being heavily guarded and the -1 would act as a minor penalty. that said, i'm not opposed to dropping it if the experts feel otherwise.

iancanton wrote:as dj says, if u want to avoid fixed starting neutrals, then the yellow max line will need to be coded as start positions to reduce the incidence of unfair starts. i think this can be best achieved by pairing each of the three yellow stations with one of the southwest regions to create 3 sets of 2 start positions. in a 1v1 game, only 2 of the sets of 2 will serve as start positions, while the regions in the third set will be allocated in the normal way along with the ordinary regions and stations.

sounds like a good solution to me!

iancanton wrote:might portland: rose city be a good title for the purposes of the gamefinder's drop-down list?

Just an idea worth contemplating - to make this territory difficult to hold then why not have decay as opposed to an overall -1 bonus? You could have decay of -1 or -2 perhaps? It would mean players would find it hard to hold the bonus(es) for more than one round, which could make for interesting gameplay (e.g. players go for the bonus just before a big assault to try and win the game).

Just an idea worth contemplating - to make this territory difficult to hold then why not have decay as opposed to an overall -1 bonus? You could have decay of -1 or -2 perhaps? It would mean players would find it hard to hold the bonus(es) for more than one round, which could make for interesting gameplay (e.g. players go for the bonus just before a big assault to try and win the game).

Yes. That was the initial idea. Sorry if I did not explain that well.

I also just realized that I keep interchanging the names "Transit Center" and "Fareless Square", which probably isn't helping - but they are the same territory.

My only question now is - does the XML allow for an auto decay only when a particular bonus or set of bonuses are held?

iancanton wrote:the downtown bonus needs defenders on all 6 regions, since #5 max can attack both pioneer and goose hollow. if u delete the pioneer exit and change the goose hollow one so it goes to nob hill instead, then downtown will have only 4 border regions (but it also splits downtown in half, with no easy way to go between the two).

I'm afraid you are wrong here. To defend downtown, you only need to place troops on Nob Hill, The Pearl, PSU and Max Stop #5. This makes it somewhat comparable to SE, in that you'd need to hold 7 territories, but only defend 4. They both have a bonus of +5.

i see ur thinking. downtown has to be worth a bigger bonus (+6?) for two reasons: its central position means it can be attacked by more bonus zones and one of the 7 regions needed to make it defensible is contested by the blue max bonus in such a way that peaceful coexistence with the blue max player is difficult.

lostatlimbo wrote:it does appear that the bike lanes invalidate the changes i made to make bonuses easier to hold. even with +4 to get through each attack, it makes for difficult defense as the game progresses. next update, i will try moving the bike lanes to only touch one or two territories. (primarily removing it from Hawthorne, Alberta Arts & University).

i like this proposal.

lostatlimbo wrote:does the XML allow for an auto decay only when a particular bonus or set of bonuses are held?

i'm not aware that the xml can do this. however, a negative bonus (not decay) can be simulated by a bonus override if two or more max lines are held.

instead of +5 for holding 5 public parks, make the public parks bonus +7 for holding 6. this is because mrbenn's bonus calculator shows that, in a 2-player game, player 1 starts with 5 parks 6.6% of the time, which is too high when u consider that it's not the only bonus on the board. the chance of player 1 starting with a 6-parks bonus is only 1.1%, which is much more reasonable.

13th Draft update:Raised bonus for parks, downtown, NE & blue line MAX. I realized NE was also too low due to separation by railroad and bike lane threat and that blue line MAX more vulnerable than red line.

-1 bonus adjustment for holding two MAX lines, -2 for holding all three. I think I like this change. It would be somewhat easy for Blue or Red to take the Yellow line for another +4 with only 2 territories and this helps minimize that.

Testing a +1 auto-deploy on "Attractions", rather than a +4 bonus for holding all four? Thoughts?I think this is more interesting than a regular bonus, since the attractions are spread somewhat evenly and the boost is justified for those regions that have the tourist attraction. My only concern is whoever gets Beaverton has an easy advantage in taking SE as well. I'm just floating the idea now - its not set in stone.

In the upper description, should it read: "...but the heart of Portland lies in green, open spaces like the 51,000..." and "...Travel green with the efficient..." You may have eliminated the articles to conserve space in the description, but just picking up on it.

Graphics:

Forest Park's texture just strangely clashes with the map still. The bombardment of texture in this area, and then the general sleek and smooth areas of surrounding map regions stick out. The same goes for the smaller park regions located in the territories around the map. They look like they are floating or unachored. Maybe a fence/border around them to offset and anchor? I'm not sure---just look strange. The water, also, I think suffers from clash. You've got two competing styles, and I'm not sure they are complimentary.

I'm not a big fan of the bridges---but I can live with them. I think they also are a competing, and may not be complimentary.

The railroad tracks, bike icons, shoe icons, and rose icons look great. I think this is the style of the map I'd like to see more prevalent throughout.

lostatlimbo wrote:Raised bonus for parks, downtown, NE & blue line MAX. I realized NE was also too low due to separation by railroad and bike lane threat and that blue line MAX more vulnerable than red line.

nice changes to the bonuses. i'd be inclined also to up the N bonus to +4, especially when compared with NW.

lostatlimbo wrote:Testing a +1 auto-deploy on "Attractions", rather than a +4 bonus for holding all four? Thoughts?I think this is more interesting than a regular bonus, since the attractions are spread somewhat evenly and the boost is justified for those regions that have the tourist attraction. My only concern is whoever gets Beaverton has an easy advantage in taking SE as well.

this works only if u start all four highlights neutral, otherwise player 1 will be likely to have a bonus on turn 1, which he can use to capture player 2's highlights. what has beaverton to do with SE? do u mean SW?

AndyDufresne wrote:Forest Park's texture just strangely clashes with the map still. The bombardment of texture in this area, and then the general sleek and smooth areas of surrounding map regions stick out.

i agree. have u tried using the same green as the rest of NW and adding tree symbols like those on an ordnance survey map (but of ur own design)?

I don't mind the look of Forest Park itself, but the other parks around the map don't fit in properly. I'm not sure what solution would be best, maybe setting the parks to a green like what one might see on a map?

The bridges, however, don't look good at all. They definitely need to be changed. Maybe to the bridge "icons" a person would see on a map? I realize that those are somewhat overused on maps here, but that's because they work so well without disrupting the look of a map.

iancanton wrote:i'd be inclined also to up the N bonus to +4, especially when compared with NW.

Haha. I was very torn on this one and kept switching it to 4 and then back again.

My thought was that both require 3 points of defense and though N has 1 extra territory to capture, NW has a 'disconnected' territory. But it also less vulnerable now. Long story short: consider it done.

iancanton wrote: this works only if u start all four highlights neutral, otherwise player 1 will be likely to have a bonus on turn 1, which he can use to capture player 2's highlights. what has beaverton to do with SE? do u mean SW?

Yes. SW, sorry. I'll move these back to a normal bonus for now, but I'd still like to do something different with them. They are important conceptually to the map, but they feel so redundant in terms of gameplay.

iancanton wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:Forest Park's texture just strangely clashes with the map still. The bombardment of texture in this area, and then the general sleek and smooth areas of surrounding map regions stick out.

i agree. have u tried using the same green as the rest of NW and adding tree symbols like those on an ordnance survey map (but of ur own design)?

I'm rather fond of Forest Park's look personally. I see your point about it sticking out too much, but that's the idea. I was trying to make it clear that - in the midst of all this urban sprawl, there is a vast piece of land that is completely undeveloped and all natural. And having a forest that runs right into your downtown is somewhat unique for a city. I was trying to capture that real-life contrast with a visual. As my theme is 'tourist map', it is a big draw.

Its basically just an ugly warehouse and factory district. Suggestions welcome.

AndyDufresne wrote:In the upper description, should it read: "...but the heart of Portland lies in green, open spaces like the 51,000..." and "...Travel green with the efficient..." You may have eliminated the articles to conserve space in the description, but just picking up on it.

They both read right to me. If you remove the descriptor "51,000-acre" it would read "like Forest Park". That is the official name. For example, you wouldn't say "like the Los Angeles". Similarly, "Travel green with MAX transit". One of my coworkers is an English major, so I shall ask her to weigh in on Monday.

AndyDufresne wrote:The same goes for the smaller park regions located in the territories around the map. They look like they are floating or unachored. Maybe a fence/border around them to offset and anchor? I'm not sure---just look strange. The water, also, I think suffers from clash. You've got two competing styles, and I'm not sure they are complimentary. I'm not a big fan of the bridges---but I can live with them. I think they also are a competing, and may not be complimentary.

Echospree wrote:I don't mind the look of Forest Park itself, but the other parks around the map don't fit in properly. I'm not sure what solution would be best, maybe setting the parks to a green like what one might see on a map? The bridges, however, don't look good at all. They definitely need to be changed. Maybe to the bridge "icons" a person would see on a map? I realize that those are somewhat overused on maps here, but that's because they work so well without disrupting the look of a map.

I will definitely re-work the parks and see if I can't come up with something more cohesive and tone down Forest Park a little.

The water might be tough. Before the complaints were that it did not look like water, but blue blobs. I think the slight depth helps to identify this as an impassable body of water. Is it just the texture of the 'ripples' in the water that makes it look odd?

I'm very fond of the bridges. Portland is known for its old bridges as much as for the roses and the early feedback I received was very disappointed with my simple, dull approach to them. Again, I do see the point - as someone else noted - that they look like toys someone left on the map. But they also (imo) infer a much needed prominence that the traditional icons lack. I especially love how clear it is that these are bridges and not just lines.

I will eliminate some of the '3-D' effect on the bridges and try to blend them in better.

14th Draft update:Dropped auto deploy idea. Upped N bonus by 1.Changed "NW Ind." to "NW Industrial"I toned down the textured elements of map - parks, bridges, waterways in an effort to minimize the visual clash. I did leave some texture in Forest Park, because I want it to be evident that the entire territory is a park, but I made it look more like a NW territory. I also lowered the bridges to make them look level and not looming over the map.

Does this address most of the graphic concerns at this point?

see below for more recent update

Last edited by lostatlimbo on Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

i think the highlights won't be held that often, since people usually don't like spreading their forces. u could make them more attractive by increasing the highlights bonus to +5 (or give up the attempt and leave it at +4). i'm not sure about the graphics concerns but, now that the bike lane neutrals are down to 2, the gameplay looks good.

I really like what you've done with the Forest---good work. I think it fits that map perfectly now. The picnic icons I'm not terribly fond of...perhaps a simple tree would work as well. But in any case, I would say what you have currently do indeed fit better with the theme of the map you have going, so good work as well.

What I like: just about everything. This just keeps getting better visually, and you've brought the individual elements together beautifully. It's clean and easy on the eye. The bonuses work (even the flex ones) and the neutral resets on the bike lanes is a nice touch. Nice map lost.

What I don't like: the only thing on this map that I think doesn't work with the overall image would be the rose photo behind the top legend. The color of the roses would be less out of place if it were tied in with something on the map itself, but mostly I don't like that it's a photograph on a map of fun hand made artwork.

Andy make a joke about the bridges so maybe there's a story behind them that I'm unaware of, but they also don't fit in for me - they are too 3-D for a map that is stylistically flat (in a very good way). And it's weird that some have vertical uprights and some not... if you just said on the last page that they're still a work in progress just tell me to shove it and keep on working.

can u adjust the boundaries between alberta arts, alameda, hollywood and irvington so that it's clear as to what borders what? now that the ponds no longer look like oil slicks, i have to agree with oaktown.

oaktown wrote:What I don't like: the only thing on this map that I think doesn't work with the overall image would be the rose photo behind the top legend.

Agreed. It was meant as a placeholder that I never got around to replacing. I think I like the black with the Made In Oregon sign.

oaktown wrote:Andy make a joke about the bridges so maybe there's a story behind them that I'm unaware of, but they also don't fit in for me - they are too 3-D for a map that is stylistically flat (in a very good way).

I've been resisting on this one, because I quite liked the look of the other bridges and didn't find them all that out of place, but I've finally thrown in the towel on this fight and gone with a basic, flat bridge. The benefit here is that it allowed me to add some land bridges over the MAX line. I noticed certain areas were getting too closed off since you have to go through the MAX only to get between NE and SE or NE and N. The two bridges I added alleviate the MAX bottleneck, but shouldn't affect bonus structure.

iancanton wrote:can u adjust the boundaries between alberta arts, alameda, hollywood and irvington so that it's clear as to what borders what?

lostatlimbo wrote:some land bridges over the MAX line. I noticed certain areas were getting too closed off since you have to go through the MAX only to get between NE and SE or NE and N. The two bridges I added alleviate the MAX bottleneck, but shouldn't affect bonus structure.

i'm not a fan of these. when using the bike lanes to attack a bonus, u're likely to lose 4 troops to the neutrals, plus 2 left behind on the bike lanes, making 6 in total. since this is already such an open map, after u add the extra two bridges, it's hard to see the bike lanes being used at all, other than in escalating games. that said, the gameplay certainly isn't broken.